AT&T ordered to halt U-Verse marketing

Published 8:00 pm, Monday, October 15, 2007

If the DPUC's decision stands, according to AT&T spokesman Seth Bloom, it will set back competition for video service in the state.

U-Verse is available in parts of Danbury.

Bloom said the company will sue in state Superior Court today, demanding the DPUC follow a new state law that allows Internet TV providers to seek a different certificate.

He also said AT&T will not offer U-Verse "services as a legacy cable franchise." That means, he said, all the jobs and investment AT&T has made are in jeopardy.

But talks with the DPUC are continuing.

Until the court rules on the matter, AT&T cannot market its service or sign up new customers, according to the DPUC.

However, customers who already have U-Verse or were signed up to get it prior to the ruling may still receive it as long as AT&T applies for a cable franchise within a year.

The DPUC ordered AT&T to apply for a cable TV license no later than Dec. 31.

The DPUC said it had to deny AT&T's request for a video service certificate and levy these requirements in the wake of a federal court decision two weeks ago that said U-Verse should be regulated as if it were a cable franchise.

"It's exactly what we sought," said Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who has demanded that AT&T follow the same procedures as other cable companies.

Blumenthal said this decision will lead to real competition for cable service in the state.

In 2006, the DPUC ruled AT&T was not a cable company and didn't need to apply for a franchise license to roll out U-Verse.

Blumenthal appealed the decision in federal court and won. AT&T then appealed that decision, losing its appeal Oct. 2, 2006.

In the intervening year, the state legislature passed regulations allowing companies that wanted to provide Internet services to apply for a video certificate.

There are similar requirements on cable licensees and certificate holders regarding public access programming and offering service regardless of residents' income.

But there are differences as well. For example, a cable company must build out its entire territory, while the holder of a video certificate can build out its network based on market demand.

AT&T was trying to get the certificate.

After the federal court decision, the company said it believed the ruling was moot in the face of Connecticut's new law.